Suggestion for graphics of SB Pro 4.1

[AlphaOneSix]

14 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

 

DCSW is visually appealing, much better than SB Pro

 

DCS terrain is really horrible for ground combat right now.  The terrain resolution is nowhere near good enough for any kind of decent ground-to-ground combat.  It doesn't help that trees not only have no collision model, but they also are invisible to AI.

 

BMS is also really bad in that the majority of ground detail is part of the texture, and isn't a 3D object.  Sure there are lots of 3D objects, but so much of the terrain is just a flat picture.  It looks great from the air, but worthless for a ground simulation.

 

IL2 I don't know much about, so I'll give you that one.

[Grenny]

39 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

 

So you say: "I claim it, suck it up. I do not answer straight request for information."

 

I gotta admit, I do not understand what you are saying.  I did not say any such thing, so please do not put words in my mouth.

 

If you want specific answers to specific questions, I am sure you can find them yourself, since they are readily available...

 

...but since you are so stur, I'm going to cut you some slack...

 

Here's a gimme for you:

 

1.  search for IL-2, which is the flight simulator that I chose for my first example; then

2.  the first search result is for http://il2sturmovik.com/

3.  the module that the video portrays is from the Battle of Stalingrad; look for

4.  the 'project' link which gives you all of your answers; so

5.  do you really require more?

 

It's not like I was sending you to Siberia to make you look for a needle-in-a-haystack.  Do maps of 358 by 230 km compare favorably to SB Pro's 80 by 80?  How about the whole of the Korean peninsula?

 

So, now that I have given you EVERYTHING for that search, can you comment on the quality of the land vehicles, their animation and graphics in the IL-2 video as they compare to SB Pro?

 

I mean, you are asking all kinds of follow-up questions, but you never have conceded that IL-2 does a bang-up job on the graphics and animation their land vehicles and 3D environment (trees, moving grasses, explosions, etc.), and they are a flight simulator!

 

It's not gonna hurt to concede that IL-2 does a better job than SB Pro.

 

You did watch the video all the way through, right?

So IL-2 can do Maps of 358x230km for ground combat in that detail, all rendered in one mission? That is really impressive.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Grenny

[Gibsonm]

Grenny,

 

Don't fret, I think the Sun will come up soon - just stop feeding.

[mpdugas]

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

Grenny,

 

Don't fret, I think the Sun will come up soon - just stop feeding.

 

No need to be a hater; I'm not being dishonest with him, nor am I trolling anyone.

[mpdugas]

1 hour ago, AlphaOneSix said:

 

DCS terrain is really horrible for ground combat right now.  The terrain resolution is nowhere near good enough for any kind of decent ground-to-ground combat.  It doesn't help that trees not only have no collision model, but they also are invisible to AI.

 

BMS is also really bad in that the majority of ground detail is part of the texture, and isn't a 3D object.  Sure there are lots of 3D objects, but so much of the terrain is just a flat picture.  It looks great from the air, but worthless for a ground simulation.

 

IL2 I don't know much about, so I'll give you that one.

 
I offered the BMS video for an example of how good weather effects can literally change the 3D objects in the game; I would never suggest that their 3D terrain is fit for much more than placing targets, but it is vastly improved over the original, flat-textured version.

In BMS, the rain covers the canopy, drenching it, obscuring vision until the plane begins to move, then it sheets back, across the pilot's line of sight.

 

It is vastly different than a spinning billboard, which just mimics weather.  When the dynamic campaign engine generates AI, the terrain supports them well.

 

The variety of weather and cloud effects in BMS is amazing; no other combat simulator shows such dramatic cloud layering and none (that I know of) allows you to link your scenario to real-time weather.  So, as an example of what old software can do, it is shown for that reason.

 

I do not use the DCSW terrain for much more than the low-and-slow Ka-50; for that, it is more than adequate.  You are right about LOS issues, though.

 

With Starway's embellishments, the Caucasus looks amazing.

[mpdugas]

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

So much for your attempt to argue fact based and without emotional bias. You know nothing, John Snow.

 

Not seeing much emotion in my "Of course, SB Pro is going to be stable; it hasn't changed much since Gold, lol! ", except perhaps the lol at the end; is that what you mean?

 

Seriously, save yourself the effort, I know you are not going to answer me.  You don't even have to make up an excuse to ban my comments; I'm done.

Edited July 14, 2016 by mpdugas
correction

[Grenny]

6 hours ago, mpdugas said:

 

No need to be a hater; I'm not being dishonest with him, nor am I trolling anyone.

Then I have the point of "dynamic campaign generator". Works well for planes, but i haven't seen one game ever, where AI can realy use ground units in a sensable way. Yet seem to claim that BMS AI controls the NorK-army...or did I misunderstand you?

[BigBadVuk]

Mpdugas , both of you have merit up to the certain point but main thing, and actual fact is :

Sb really improved over the years and version after version....

Remember - what kind of smoke and arty effects we had, then 3d instead of sprites infantry, then shadows, wind effects, burning wrecks and their smoke following the wind direction, 3d models and textures, themes...etc etc etc.... list is long and im just writing out of my head.

 

Ultimate point is: one day we will have Dx12 as well, if there are available resources to spare im sure eSIm will go for it. I really dont think that they are "against advance" it is simple matter of having limited resources and priorities. Decision was to make terrain improvement first and then to develop other things. 

 

On a side note about that falcon BMS - i was using win 7 x64 and latest bms( i think 4.33 ) and it was messing up constantly with controls that is why it is history now. Ill stick with DCS

[ssidiver]

12 hours ago, mpdugas said:

 

Not seeing much emotion in my "Of course, SB Pro is going to be stable; it hasn't changed much since Gold, lol! ", except perhaps the lol at the end; is that what you mean?

 

Seriously, save yourself the effort, I know you are not going to answer me.  You don't even have to make up an excuse to ban my comments; I'm done.

 

I am saving myself the effort as well, since The graphics are in SB Pro PE v3 are just fine for me!

[mpdugas]

8 hours ago, Grenny said:

Then I have the point of "dynamic campaign generator". Works well for planes, but i haven't seen one game ever, where AI can realy use ground units in a sensable way. Yet seem to claim that BMS AI controls the NorK-army...or did I misunderstand you?

 

Grenny, it's pretty much the lowest-cost, high-fidelity simulator out there.  It is predominantly an F-16 simulator, to such a level of complexity that it will make your eyes water.  Every air mission over the contested territories sees the F-16 encountering many, many hostile AI units, both ground and air.  That's why I suggested that you will see more than your fair share of opposition by just flying north with a campaign active.  All the while you are flying your mission, the simulator is running this theater-wide war in the background.  The better you do (just like gunnery range scores in SB Pro), then the better your side will do.  Damage persists from mission to mission, until you win or lose the campaign.

 

I gave this video as an example to show what effect real weather complexity can have on your vehicle.  The mission starts out with rain obscuring your view from the cockpit.  It's dripping down in thick sheets, and everything you see is blurred and distorted.

 

As you accelerate down the runway to take off, the rain streams back down your canopy until it clears away with enough speed.  Clouds appear in multiple layers, and don't have just fixed shapes; the weather is dynamic, too, and you can link the mission weather to what is actually  happening where the mission is flown the the real world.

 

There are lots of videos out there about it; just be sure to search for the latest version, which is BMS 4.33.1.

 

So, yes, it does control the whole of the NK army, and you can see all of what is visible to your normal viewing distance.  While you are flying, hundreds of little AI units, friend and foe, are battling it out down there.

[AlphaOneSix]

I think his point is that they battle it out WWI-style, where units just mash into each other with no real tactical thought at all.

[GSprocket]

13 minutes ago, AlphaOneSix said:

I think his point is that they battle it out WWI-style, where units just mash into each other with no real tactical thought at all.

It really isn't even at WWI standards. There were plans, tactics and coordination attempted if not always accomplished in that war.

[mpdugas]

22 minutes ago, AlphaOneSix said:

I think his point is that they battle it out WWI-style, where units just mash into each other with no real tactical thought at all.

 

I chose the video to show the effects of realistic weather upon the player-controlled vehicle; how the little robotic AI units do their thing is fun to watch.  They seem to be fighting for their lives.  The better example of the graphics 'realism' attainable for ground units in action is demonstrated in the IL-2 and DCS videos.  Fly low enough over a land battle in BMS, however, and you can watch some serious fireworks.  Which is what happens when emotions rule after the shock of the initial engagement obtains, and survival becomes the number one tactic in play.

 

No plan survives contact with the enemy.  Which is why the emotional component of a combat engagement is so important.  If that is lacking, then simulated combat becomes a cerebral event, and I can tell you, from personal, bitter experience, that that is not the case.  Thinking is a vital-but-rare element in warfare; if you can train to think clearly when your every instinct is telling you to flee or hide, then you will win on the modern battlefield.  As we have seen, that is notably missing here.  It doesn't have to be so, but it is.

Edited July 15, 2016 by mpdugas
missing word

[mpdugas]

2 hours ago, BigBadVuk said:

Mpdugas , both of you have merit up to the certain point but main thing, and actual fact is :

Sb really improved over the years and version after version....

Remember - what kind of smoke and arty effects we had, then 3d instead of sprites infantry, then shadows, wind effects, burning wrecks and their smoke following the wind direction, 3d models and textures, themes...etc etc etc.... list is long and im just writing out of my head.

 

Ultimate point is: one day we will have Dx12 as well, if there are available resources to spare im sure eSIm will go for it. I really dont think that they are "against advance" it is simple matter of having limited resources and priorities. Decision was to make terrain improvement first and then to develop other things. 

 

On a side note about that falcon BMS - i was using win 7 x64 and latest bms( i think 4.33 ) and it was messing up constantly with controls that is why it is history now. Ill stick with DCS

There is a USB management problem inherent to Windows; it randomly sorts the controllers and changes their IDs without much notice.  BMS 4.33.1 addressed that Windows problem, and was one of the major reasons the change was implemented.

 

Now, when you set USB controller assignments, they persist from session to session.

 

I went back to Falcon because that change was important to me; I was tired of watching Windows shuffle my controllers around and having to re-map them every session.

 

If that was a major issue for you, it has been solved by BMS.

[AlphaOneSix]

29 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

 

I chose the video to show the effects of realistic weather upon the player-controlled vehicle; how the little robotic AI units do their thing is fun to watch.

 

 

I think this is the whole point.  Your usage of Falcon BMS as an example was purely to show realistic weather effects.

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by AlphaOneSix

[mpdugas]

https://youtu.be/56FLPzDw3h0

 

https://youtu.be/oLZJYU18pzw

 

https://youtu.be/dWYhkgjN7w4

 

More Combined Arms from the ground level of DCSW.

[Kev2go]

3 hours ago, mpdugas said:

https://youtu.be/56FLPzDw3h0

 

https://youtu.be/oLZJYU18pzw

 

https://youtu.be/dWYhkgjN7w4

 

More Combined Arms from the ground level of DCSW.

 

yea except tanks dont collide with trees or objects short of actual buildings. . and you dont get  tank interiors. Its pretty simplified. armored units are pretty much there just to order on the map  to combat other units  or briefly control   & to laser designate targets for the Aircraft, which DCS is primarily about.  you can arguably get a better combined arms experience tanking in Arma than DCS. lol

 

 

Edited July 16, 2016 by Kev2go

[mpdugas]

27 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

yea except tanks dont collide with trees or objects short of actual buildings. . and you dont get  tank interiors. Its pretty simplified. armored units are pretty much there just to order on the map  to combat other units  or briefly control   & to laser designate targets for the Aircraft, which DCS is primarily about.  you can arguably get a better combined arms experience tanking in Arma than DCS. lol

 

 

Yep, and much better ground graphics from what is a simplified ground module in a flight simulator; I never have claimed that DCSW was a better tank simulator, but it's tank environment is leaps-and-bounds better.  And it is first-and-foremost a flight simulator.

 

Please note the obvious: there are aircraft involved with the tanks.  That is a significant difference, particularly when the player can control most of these units.

 

IL-2, however, actually has a crewable tank mod, with tank interiors, in a much better graphical environment, just like in the video with the Stuka.  Also with planes interacting with the armor.

 

That is  a conspicuous difference.

 

See:

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=steel+beasts+pro+4.0+preview&&view=detail&mid=623BE5E03A6676F3393D623BE5E03A6676F3393D&FORM=VRDGAR

Edited July 16, 2016 by mpdugas
add emphasis

[Grenny]

DCS has a better particle system. Which looks really nice. (onyl complaint is that some of the explosions look to holliwoodish and to less real life like)  The maps terrain looks better as it is made for that map by the programmers (more variations in vegitation and Objects make it more realistic) while in SB the terrain will look repetetive as the as it has to be easy editable by the end user.

Other then that I do not see to much improvement. "Leaps and bounds better" is a bit of a stretch

The vehicles all seem to be standing on a billiard table (hills? ditches?)...the terrain resolution seems to be much worse then the 12,5mx12,5m of the SB terrain

[Ssnake]

Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here?

You keep droning on about looks, looks, and more looks. Got it. We all agree that better looks would be nice to have. Sane people will also agree that in the short run there is no way to appease your cause even if we fully agreed with everything that you write - which we patently do not. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to take other people's arguments serious as well. To prove a point, you expect others to install and learn an entirely different simulation (which you admit to being not quite so easy to do) rather than answering simple questions in a straightforward manner. You brush aside very serious objections - probably because you are entirely clueless about the underlying technical implications by, for example, skipping all line of sight and collision calculations between ground units and tanks, and the associated CPU load, and what that does to the frame rate. Or maybe you know all this very well, in which case you are but a troll.

 

This thread has served its purpose. I have been more than patient with your case. Keep going, and face the consequences. Or change your style, in which case you're still welcome. This is not about suppressing dissenting opinions, I object to the style of your argumentation.

 

[mpdugas]

7 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here?

You keep droning on about looks, looks, and more looks. Got it. We all agree that better looks would be nice to have. Sane people will also agree that in the short run there is no way to appease your cause even if we fully agreed with everything that you write - which we patently do not. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to take other people's arguments serious as well. To prove a point, you expect others to install and learn an entirely different simulation (which you admit to being not quite so easy to do) rather than answering simple questions in a straightforward manner. You brush aside very serious objections - probably because you are entirely clueless about the underlying technical implications by, for example, skipping all line of sight and collision calculations between ground units and tanks, and the associated CPU load, and what that does to the frame rate. Or maybe you know all this very well, in which case you are but a troll.

 

This thread has served its purpose. I have been more than patient with your case. Keep going, and face the consequences. Or change your style, in which case you're still welcome. This is not about suppressing dissenting opinions, I object to the style of your argumentation.

 

Gott im Himmel, Herr Nils, sei ruhiger!

 

First of all, these forum threads are not just all about you; sometimes, members just talk among themselves.

 

Other people have shown interest in this simple idea: the need for strenuous training under more realistic psychological pressure is significant, and it is not a trivial matter.

 

You reject this thesis as a demand for no more than mere 'good looks' or 'eye candy'.  That is condescending, dismissive and disingenuous.

 

All of the technical and resource 'objections' that you raise have been solved quite well by the other software that I have shown as examples.  They do all that you say cannot be done, yet you insist that it is technically and logistically impossible.

 

It's not my style that is at issue here.  I don't ask you to do anything.  I do, however, counter your claims that it can't be done by showing tangible examples to the contrary.  I address the problems you posit with concrete exemplars of viable solutions.

 

Your answer to my constructive criticism is simply to threaten to silence me.  I've never taken my commentary to a personal or caustic level.  Where I find a fault or shortcoming, I offered real solutions.  I do not just criticize.

 

I don't care if you ban me; your censorship just stills my constructive, critical commentary.  So, yeah, it is about suppressing an opinion.  Do what you wanna do.

 

 

 

p.s. I realized that Grenny couldn't do what I suggested, so I gave him his answers in detail.  I think he has gotten all that he requires.  If you had treated me, and my style, with balance, you would have noticed that, too.

[rob17]

18 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

All of the technical and resource 'objections' that you raise have been solved quite well by the other software that I have shown as examples.  They do all that you say cannot be done, yet you insist that it is technically and logistically impossible.

 

Seriously you have not shown examples of how it can be done AS A WHOLE.  At best you're taking the good points you like from various programs and saying "See it can be done" and totally ignoring the points SSnake makes that none of them do everything you're asking for all at once.  It's great to say you can have all these units running around in DCS or BMS but as SSnake and others have pointed out they don't get stopped by (or pay attention) trees etc.  You can't get the AI to avoid trees with zero impact on CPU.  SSnake may or may not disagree with your basic concept, but there is a huge difference between we'd like and what is REASONABLY possible.  I don't have high level programming knowledge but even I know that if you start to just throw one of the graphics engines you suggest into SB it will not come at zero cost to performance (even setting aside the difficulties of meshing the two).  You don't seem to want to acknowledge this hit or that your examples don't show what you want them too.  From my perspective that's likely why this thread is heading to a close, not to stifle discussion of your point of view/wants.

[Grenny]

25 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

Gott im Himmel, Herr Nils, sei ruhiger!

 

First of all, these forum threads are not just all about you; sometimes, members just talk among themselves.

 

Other people have shown interest in this simple idea: the need for strenuous training under more realistic psychological pressure is significant, and it is not a trivial matter.

 

You reject this thesis as a demand for no more than mere 'good looks' or 'eye candy'.  That is condescending, dismissive and disingenuous.

 

All of the technical and resource 'objections' that you raise have been solved quite well by the other software that I have shown as examples.  They do all that you say cannot be done, yet you insist that it is technically and logistically impossible.

 

It's not my style that is at issue here.  I don't ask you to do anything.  I do, however, counter your claims that it can't be done by showing tangible examples to the contrary.  I address the problems you posit with concrete exemplars of viable solutions.

 

Your answer to my constructive criticism is simply to threaten to silence me.  I've never taken my commentary to a personal or caustic level.  Where I find a fault or shortcoming, I offered real solutions.  I do not just criticize.

 

I don't care if you ban me; your censorship just stills my constructive, critical commentary.  So, yeah, it is about suppressing an opinion.  Do what you wanna do.

 

 

 

p.s. I realized that Grenny couldn't do what I suggested, so I gave him his answers in detail.  I think he has gotten all that he requires.  If you had treated me, and my style, with balance, you would have noticed that, too.

1st; No you haven't answered all, I gave up on the conversation.

2nd: There is no frackin way to produce psychological preasure in front of monitor. Who ever comes to the idea that its remotely possible never sat in a turret.

[AlphaOneSix]

The example of BMS seems to be solely a comment on weather.  Real-time weather is not very valuable except as a single-player gimmick, in my opinion.  It can be entertaining and interesting, but doesn't really have a place in planned missions.  In other words, I think it's better for the mission designer to dictate the weather for the mission in the way that suits the mission designer's aims the best.  Also, while the weather may not be as "pretty" as BMS, the effects of that weather are there for the most part (which really just boils down to affects on visibility).  While some people don't see the weather as just eye candy, unless the actual affects of that weather have an impact on the mission, then that's all it is. Again, I'm referring to affects on visibility and ground conditions (SB already implements visibility reductions, and no combat sim that I know of has weather that affects ground conditions very well, although SB does do some things like reducing dust).

 

DCS was mentioned as an example of great ground graphics, but again, they really aren't that great.  What I mean is that there are lots of things about DCS terrain that is really pretty, but the two biggest problems are trees (absolute show stopper for ground units) and the poor terrain resolution (here I am referring to the lack of undulating terrain in DCS, it is generally either too flat or too steep with regards to ground units). This is another example (at least as it pertains to ground units) of graphics that do look good but simply do not have any practical use other than looking nice. It seems like one of your major points is that better graphics equals greater immersion which then results in "realistic psychological pressure" and I'm not sure that's really the case.

 

Also, it must be noted that the terrain is BMS and DCS is either not able to be modified, or takes a great deal of effort, unlike SB, where it is very simple for a mission designer to modify terrain to suit their training objectives. I do think it bears repeating who the target audiences are for DCS/BMS/Il-2 vs. SB.  Even the Personal Edition of Steel Beasts is not intended as an entertainment product or even as a study simulation.  It's a training product.

 

The only good example is your example using Il-2, but I don't know anything about Il-2 so cannot comment on it.

[CalAB]

Hey mpdugas,

A quick question, do you or have you ever served your country in any military capacity ?

Edited July 16, 2016 by CalAB